The CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) has discovered the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element is Governmentium ( Gv ).

It has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lefton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons or protons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A tiny amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction normally taking less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2- 6 years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium’s mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalyzed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium , an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons. All of the money is consumed in the exchange, and no other by products are produced.

(I wish I could claim to have written this. Alas, I shamelessly stole it from another forum.)

19 comments

Senator Sherrod Brown’s campaign issued a new attack ad Friday against his rival, Republican Josh Mandel. In it, the Ohio Democrat accuses Mandel of using the “big lie” strategy in his campaign. The term “big lie” was coined by Adolf Hitler and is commonly associated with Nazi propaganda.

Mandel is Jewish.

The ad states: “Josh Mandel: He has become the candidate of the big lie.” It cites a Columbus Dispatch columnist as the source for the quote. It argues that Mandel has made numerous false statements about his career as state treasurer, among other distortions.

Brown’s ad does not specifically mention Nazis, but the term “big lie” is still closely identified with them. Earlier this week, John Burton, chairman of the California delegation to the Democrats’ Charlotte convention, was criticized when he compared Republican Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan to the Nazis and referenced the “big lie.”

“They lie and they don’t care if people think they lie. Joseph Goebbels. It’s the big lie, you keep repeating it,” Burton told the San Francisco Chronicle. He reiterated the point in an interview with ABC: “If you’re not telling the truth, you’re lying. Joseph Goebbels’ concept was the big lie. If you tell it enough, people will think it’s the truth.”

Goebbels was Hitler’s minister of propaganda.

This is not the first time Brown has linked his opponents to Nazis. In March 2011 he publicly apologized after comparing Republican governors pushing union reforms to Hitler and Stalin in a speech on the Senate floor:

I look back in history (and) some of the worst governments that we’ve ever had, do you know one of the first things they did? They went after the trade unions. Hitler didn’t want unions, Stalin didn’t want unions, (former Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak didn’t want independent unions. These autocrats in history don’t want independent unions.

Brown then backtracked, saying “I am not comparing what’s happened to the workers in Madison or in Columbus to Hitler and Stalin.”

Brown and Mandel are locked in a tight, bitterly-fought race. RealClearPolitics.com’s poll average gives Brown, the incumbent, a three point edge. Several recent polls have shown the race tied.

Neither the Mandel campaign nor the Brown campaign could be reached for comment.

Sorry for being off topic but as a long time LC, I need help. My ultra conservative cousin, Jonathan Schmidt was KIA Sept 1. He was special ops, spoke all the ME languages and loved this country. He died at 28 doing what he loved and for what he loved…this country. In the midst of trying to help and contain my family as they weed through the misinformation as the Army is declassifying exactly what a badass he was…he has gotten some media attention. To my dismay, my mother posts a link where the daily kos commie kids have a diary IGTNT and while respectful, it has my cousin’s name and pic up. My mother immediately took it down when I explained there were other diaries professing love and admiration for terrorists. I have been trying ALL day to log on and kindly ask them to take this down. That site is everything my cousin disliked. He risked his life in over 5 deployments and died two weeks before he was to return home. He was 28 and left behind a little boy who just turned 3. His parents are pretty upset and I am trying to help them deal with this. It’s very disrespectful.

The favor I ask…if anyone has the ability to log on there and ask them to remove my cousin’s information, it would be appreciated on behalf of his family. If not, can someone please send me an email addy so I can ask them. I know they aren’t breaking any secular laws, but these are moral ones. And he was repulsed by these people and would absolutely hate to think he was on their site. Hopefully, they have some honor and will respect our family.

“America does not need four more years of an in-over-his-head whiner; a petulant egomaniac who does not seem to understand the most basic of economic principles and who is a lousy negotiator to boot.”

Our commander in chief has demonstrated time and again that he cannot work with opposition, that he is unable to see issues from others’ point of view, and he has failed to think outside of the tiny and highly constrained liberal box vis a vis the big problems of our nation.

Atop all of that, he displays classic neurotic and narcissistic tendencies.

According to academics, neurotics approach conflict in unhealthy ways: “they rely on direct and indirect fighting,” they” perceive their social situation negatively” causing them to distrust others, and when confronted, they “act defensive, use guilt-inducements, and leave the scene in a ‘hit and run’ manner.”

While a neurotic president is dangerous enough, Barack Obama is also a quintessential narcissist. The literature states that narcissists tend to display several characteristics, all of which the president has nailed.

For one, narcissists believe that they are unique. It was the entire rationale for Obama’s presidential candidacy. He believed, and probably continues to believe, that he alone could heal America, bring the parties together, take the middle ground on all issues, and even slow the rise of the oceans.

Narcissists believe they are superior to other people, and they have dreams about gaining power and prestige. According to ABC News, when the Republicans took control of the House in 2010, Obama didn’t even have incoming speaker John Boehner’s phone number. That the president couldn’t see it coming, and didn’t bother to concern himself with how to get in touch with the leader of his opposition says it all.

Narcissists need attention and admiration. From the Greek columns at Invesco Field and the cult of personality that sprung up around Barack Obama four years ago to his continued wooing of Hollywood elites, the president often seems to put the need for grandstanding ahead of the thankless work of governing.

They are inclined to show off.

Narcissistic people have a knack for appearing charming. Obama’s charm cannot be denied. Interestingly, academic literature notes that “the first impression of the narcissist evaporates once people learn more about this charming individual.” Americans are coming to learn more about Obama and are not impressed with his charm. Polling shows a very steady decline in his popularity.

In their interpersonal behaviors, narcissists manipulate and exploit. The president’s despicable use of Paul Ryan as a punching bag in 2011, when he invited the congressman to attend a speech about entitlements is the best example. Ryan had just issued a bold and risky plan for Medicare, and the president took advantage of his bully pulpit to bully the Budget Committee Chairman. His attack on a Supreme Court decision in his 2010 State of the Union is another example.

Narcissists are unable to empathize. Despite all his talk from the political center—especially his outrageously deceptive bestseller, The Audacity of Hope—the president has been unable during his term in office to ascribe good motives to those who disagree with him. Describing Republicans’ views, he accused them of wanting dirtier air and water and fewer people with health insurance. Not understanding that half of the country can disagree with him and still be decent people escapes him.

A narcissist displays envy. If “you didn’t build that” doesn’t betray a sense of envy over what others have done, it is at least exploitative of that envy in his base. But nearly all of Obama’s domestic policy proposals are built on envy, couched in terms of fairness.

The president, like other narcissists, is arrogant, defensive, and aggressive.

Interestingly, Canary writes, “narcissistic people are quite charming when initiating social involvements. However, narcissists face problems in sustaining positive relationships.”

If that doesn’t describe Barack Obama’s relationship with the American electorate, then nothing does.

Everyone has neurosis and narcissism to a degree. It is likely a major problem when the most powerful man in the world suffers from both in excess.

You can learn more about the author at Rich-Stowell.com and on Facebook.

Military: The administration thanks the troops for their service by failing to comply with a law requiring that it help soldiers deployed overseas cast ballots in their home states.

The administration has taken various states to court to block voter ID laws on the grounds it will disenfranchise voters. But it has no qualms about the disenfranchisement of military voters overseas through its failure to comply with and enforce the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act, passed by Congress in 2009 and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

The law acknowledges the difficulties caused by time and distance for deployed soldiers in exercising the right to vote they put their lives on the line to protect. One of the key provisions required each military branch to create an installation voting assistance office (IVAO) for every military base outside an immediate combat zone.

Last week, however, the Pentagon’s inspector general reported that attempts to locate and contact IVAO offices at overseas military installations failed about half the time.

“Results were clear. Our attempts to contact IVAOs failed about 50% of the time,” the inspector general reported. “We concluded the Services had not established all the IVAOs as intended by the MOVE Act because, among other issues, the funding was not available.”

The estimated cost of establishing functioning IVAOs at all overseas military bases not in combat zones is estimated at between $15 million and $20 million a year. We wasted $530 million on Solyndra but can’t afford a relative pittance to ensure our soldiers are not disenfranchised.

An administration that constantly talks about voter disenfranchisement appears unconcerned that a study by the nonpartisan Military Voters Protection Project found that in 2008 less than 20% of 2.5 million military voters successfully voted by absentee ballot. In 2010, that participation shrank to a scandalous 5%. We need to encourage military voting and make it easier.

Is there a method in the administration’s madness, a reason it doesn’t want to make it easier for soldiers to vote? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that John McCain won 54% of the military vote in 2008 or that a May 2012 Gallup poll showed Mitt Romney pulling 58% to President Obama’s paltry 34%.

The law also requires that states mail absentee ballots to their servicemen 45 days before an election so there’s enough time to return and count them. The Department of Justice can file suit to ensure compliance but in 2010 was content to grant failing states waivers. As a result, about one-third of overseas troops who wanted to vote in 2010 couldn’t, according to testimony at a House committee hearing in February.

That’s an oldie and a goodie. That element was originally called Administratium. It has two mutations: Fuckoffium, and the union isotope, Luddinium. These came into being through transmutation of an anti-material element called Ignorium which is without mass and formless, yet infects all institutions as a cultural contagion.

Lee Atwater couldn’t have written a better script for the Democratic National Convention that just ended in Charlotte. The Charlotte fiasco was a less violent version of the fiasco in Chicago in 1968, except the lunacy was now inside the venue, not outside.

Tom Brokaw shares the story of how Hubert Humphrey lost the 1968 election after Americans watched television images of the young radicals in Grant Park scaling statues and flying the Viet Cong flag. At that moment, Americans fully appreciated the lawless direction that some wanted to take the country and saw Richard Nixon as the antidote.

The young radicals of 1968 have become the old radicals who now control the Democrat Party. They put on a convention this week characterized by incompetence, radicalism, and race.

His Agenda: President Obama’s convention speech got rough reviews, and rightly so. He offered little but tired bromides and recycled promises. But critics overlooked one promise that will guarantee an even bleaker future.

There was plenty to dislike in Obama’s speech. The language was flat, his delivery languid. The speech was stuffed with standard Obama chestnuts about the smallness of politics, the corrupting influence of money in politics, and how cynicism is our worst enemy.

Instead of stirring rhetoric filled with hope and promise, Obama pledged that under his leadership, “our path is harder” and “our road is longer.”

Seriously? After four years of the worst economic recovery since the Depression, falling incomes, lower-paying jobs, increased hopelessness and exploding debt, all Obama has to offer is that he’ll make this nightmare last even longer?

He also told the public that they “elected me to tell you the truth” not to “tell you what you wanted to hear,” but then proceeded to hide inconvenient truths while filling the public’s ears with sweet nothings.

For example, he pledged government help for everyone who could possibly want or need it, but managed to avoid any mention of the hard truth that the national debt just topped $16 trillion and entitlements are unsustainable.

He said he’d spend money saved from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on roads, bridges and schools. Even the liberal press wasn’t buying this one. As the AP pointed out, Obama “laid claim to a peace dividend that doesn’t exist.”

Obama promised to “take responsible steps” that would “keep the promise of Social Security.” But he failed to mention that the only options he’s left on the table are raising taxes or cutting benefits. That may not be what people want to hear, but it’s the absolute truth.

He trotted out his supposed plan to cut deficits by $4 trillion over the next decade. But his actual plan — the budget he presented in February — would add $3.5 trillion in deficits, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Then Obama said he’d create a million new manufacturing jobs, recruit another 100,000 math and science teachers, cut tuition growth in half, and reform the tax code. All by magic, apparently, since he’s provided no detailed plans on any of this.

But while everyone was picking apart these and other flaws in Obama’s speech, they overlooked the most frightening line of all. That was when Obama promised that he’d pursue “the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.”

That was when Obama promised that he’d pursue “the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.”

“Prepping” has reached an all-time high. Visit any site that sells long-term storage food and look how much stuff is back-ordered. Gun and ammo sales are through the roof. Few can see a “light” at the end of the tunnel anymore.

Both Michelle Robinson and Barack Obama began their adult lives with a leg up on the rest of America. They attended elite schools: Michelle went to Whitney Young, the public magnet school for Chicago’s upper class, while Barack attended Punahou, the private prep school for the top stratum of Hawaiian society. They were accepted to Ivy League schools despite undistinguished credentials, and both attended Harvard Law School.

“[B]elieve it or not, when we were first married, our combined monthly student loan bills were actually higher than our mortgage,” Michelle said. That sounds like a raw deal–but in fact reflects their fortunate circumstances. They had both just graduated from a very expensive law school, and their combined income from cushy law firm jobs dwarfed the repayments. Barack also soon enjoyed a second salary from the University of Chicago.

They had expensive tastes, reflected in the $277,500 two-bedroom condo they bought in 1993–a high price even by today’s standards. Several years later, they moved into their $1.65 million mansion in Hyde Park–with the help of fraudster Tony Rezko. Barack often told a story of hardship on the campaign trail in 2008 about having his credit card declined–once. The fact that he thought this counted as real hardship speaks volumes.

As her husband moved onto the national political stage, Michelle Obama began to enjoy a lavish lifestyle at taxpayer expense, directly and indirectly. When Barack Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he obtained a $1 million earmark for the University of Chicago Hospital–and his wife’s salary as Vice President for Community Affairs jumped from $121,910 to $316,962. Her job: pushing poor, uninsured patients to other hospitals.

As First Lady, Michelle Obama has lived high on the hog while the rest of the country has suffered through an extraordinary recession. In 2010, she and her entourage decamped to Spain for a lavish vacation. That summer, the Obamas encouraged Americans to visit the Gulf coast after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which threatened tourism in the region. They promptly jetted off to Maine for their own summer holiday.

This summer, the Obamas skipped their usual summer trip to the wealthy playground of Martha’s Vineyard–months after Michelle and her daughters had enjoyed an expensive winter skiing trip in Aspen. And, of course, there are the frequent pilgrimages to Hawaii, Some of their family’s comfort, of course, comes from private income, principally Barack Obama’s book sales–yet even that wealth is a spin-off of Obama’s political career.

If, as the Democrats eagerly pointing out, Mitt Romney enjoyed the privilege of private wealth, the Obamas have enjoyed privilege funded by public money and public life. And until entering the national spotlight, they gave little to charity, contributing instead to a church that preached racial grievance. “[T]ruth matters,” Michelle Obama told the nation . That, too, is a lie–because so far, she has evaded it without consequence.